The latest Boeing and aerospace news, including updates about the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, 747-8 and 737, Airbus A380 and A350, the anticipated Boeing 797 and Boeing jobs and layoffs

Note: This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the P-I. The authors are solely responsible for content. E-mail us at newmedia@seattlepi.com if you consider a post inappropriate..

How ‘disappointed’ is Boeing in tanker criteria?

Boeing and its supporters surely are genuinely disappointed that the Air Force failed to take into account in its aerial refueling tanker request for last year’s World Trade Organization ruling that European governments improperly subsidized competitor Airbus.

But at least one media report appears to be overplaying the company’s dismay.

According to leaked accounts of the still-confidential preliminary ruling, the WTO panel found the improperly subsidized programs included the A330, which is the basis for the Northrop Grumman-EADS tanker.

So it’s not surprising that Boeing’s reaction to the final tanker request included this comment by Jean Chamberlin, vice president and general manager of the company’s tanker program:

While we appreciated the open dialogue with the Air Force throughout this process, we are disappointed that the RFP does not address some of our key concerns, including Airbus’ unfair competitive advantage derived from subsidies from its sponsor European governments — subsidies that the World Trade Organization has found to be illegal and harmful to U.S. workers and industry — and how fuel and military-construction costs over the life of the tankers will be factored into consideration of the competing bids. We will review the RFP in its entirety and in detail before offering further assessment.

And that got my attention, given that Northrop has been the loudest grumbler about the draft criteria, saying they favor Boeing’s smaller 767-based tanker, and the final request changed little on that front.

Looking over the AFP story, I think it’s a good example of how a technically factual account can be misleading.

Specifically, AFP led with Chamberlin’s remarks about exclusion of the WTO ruling when, in reality, that was the last part of her statement.

The story included, further down, what Chamberlin said just before the WTO part: “We’ve said consistently that it is up to the Air Force to determine the KC-X requirements for a new generation of tankers. It’s our responsibility to respond to those requirements.”

Put after the WTO part, that sounds almost like saying: “We’re disappointed, but we’ll respond to what they say.”

In reality, this appears to me to be more of an attempt to contrast Boeing’s stand to Northrop and EADS grumbling about the criteria, as in: “We’re not complaining about what the Air Force says it needs; we’re responding to it.”

Of course, Northrop and EADS would say Boeing has less reason to complain.

Finally, while I think Boeing officials genuinely feel the tanker request should account for the WTO ruling, I also believe continuing to complain about the issue is an attempt to counter Northrop’s argument that the request is tilted toward Boeing and make it more of a “Neither company got just what it wanted” situation.

Note: This is a seattlepi.com reader blog. It is not written or edited by the P-I. The authors are solely responsible for content. E-mail us at newmedia@seattlepi.com if you consider a post inappropriate..